- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for getting the services of the petitioners regularized.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the services of petitioner no.3 have been regularized and, therefore, the present writ petition is confined to petitioner nos. 1 and 3 only. It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were serving with the respondents as Work Charge employees since 1965 and 1968 respectively and, therefore, their services ought to have been regularized by the concerned respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh V/s. State of Jharkhand, as reported in 2005(3) J.L.J.R. 38 (FB), and submitted that the services of the petitioners ought to have been regularized by the concerned respondent authorities.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were never appointed by the competent authority. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were appointed by Sub Divisional Officers. In fact, these petitioners could not have been appointed by such a low ranking officers and the competent appointing authority is either Executive Engineer or the Chief Engineer of the Work Charge Establishment. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent -State that a conscious decision has been taken by the respondent -State, for such type of candidates, by appointing a separate committee of five members and a detailed speaking order has been passed by the said committee, which is at Annexure A to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents.;